On 04.03.2008 11:55:36 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Jeremias Maerki wrote: > > On 04.03.2008 11:10:30 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> First, let me insist that the next release should be called 0.95 beta, > >> according to the Apache documentation [1]. Release candidates are > >> targetted at developers and users following the development, and I think > >> we want to reach users outside the project (DocBook users being part of > >> them). We must be consistent with the Apache naming scheme IMO. > > > > Whatever. I'm not sure if [1] really reflects a strict policy. I > > remember discussions about the membership around this topic some time > > ago. Several FOPers stated they prefer "RC" in January. But if you think > > "beta" is better and nobody objects, go ahead. > > Well even if we put different names on it, we all agreed on the process: > publish an unstable version, then a stable one after some testing time. > According to the Apache doc an rc doesn’t require a vote, but I guess we > will vote. So a beta seems more appropriate to me. If nobody objects > until tomorrow I’ll go ahead.
We obviously don't have the same definition of a release candidate as [1]. Whether a vote is necessary or not depends on whether we publish the release through the ASF mirrors or not. If someone puts a distribution on his personal web page and doesn't announce that on the user list (dev list is ok), it's not a formal release. Everything that gets announced to a wider audience needs to go on the mirrors in order to reduce the strain on ASF infrastructure and therefore has to be voted upon because it's a formal release backed by the PMC. So, we want feedback from the user community, and that's why a formal release is necessary. > > >> Also, I have two pending changes regarding tables: > >> - support for backgrounds on table-column and header/footer/body > >> - conflict between fixed row height and forced break (if a forced break > >> occurs before the row height is reached it gets ignored). I know of at > >> least one user who is looking forward to seeing this bug fixed. > >> I think it would be good to have those two features available in the > >> next release. That shouldn’t take more than one week to finish them. > >> Shouldn’t be a big deal to wait one more week? And that doesn’t prevent > >> us from preparing everything but the artifacts building. > >> > >> WDYT? > > > > I think you are quite late to bring this on the table. I've started > > I’m going as fast as I can. > > > early enough to notify everyone that we'll be building a release around > > this time. If you want these two points in the release, go ahead but > > you'll have to take over most of the remaining release process. I've > > Fine. Building the artifacts is not the biggest part of the work anyway. > Updating the website is the most important one. > > > reserved time to do this now so I'll finish going through our website > > and then go back to hacking. Next week I won't have much time as I'm > > absorbed with OpenExpo in Bern. > > > Vincent > > > -- > Vincent Hennebert Anyware Technologies > http://people.apache.org/~vhennebert http://www.anyware-tech.com > Apache FOP Committer FOP Development/Consulting Jeremias Maerki
